CVE-2022-39237
syslabs/sif is the Singularity Image Format (SIF) reference implementation. In versions prior to 2.8.1the `github.com/sylabs/sif/v2/pkg/integrity` package did not verify that the hash algorithm(s) used are cryptographically secure when verifying digital signatures. A patch is available in version >= v2.8.1 of the module. Users are encouraged to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may independently validate that the hash algorithm(s) used for metadata digest(s) and signature hash are cryptographically secure.
Vulnerability Summary
CVSS v3 Score
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score (Exploitation Probability)
This vulnerability has a 0.25% probability of being exploited in the next 30 days, ranking higher than 49% of all scored CVEs.
CWE Classification
Related Vulnerabilities
Same Weakness Type(CWE-347)
A improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.14, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.21, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message.
The ruby-saml library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. ruby-saml versions up to and including 1.12.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-25292. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, generating entirely different document structures from the same input. This allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0.
A potential security vulnerability has been identified in the HP Linux Imaging and Printing Software documentation. This potential vulnerability is due to the use of a weak code signing key, Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).
In IGEL OS before 11, Secure Boot can be bypassed because the igel-flash-driver module improperly verifies a cryptographic signature. Ultimately, a crafted root filesystem can be mounted from an unverified SquashFS image.
ruby-saml provides security assertion markup language (SAML) single sign-on (SSO) for Ruby. An authentication bypass vulnerability was found in ruby-saml prior to versions 1.12.4 and 1.18.0 due to a parser differential. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, the parsers can generate entirely different document structures from the same XML input. That allows an attacker to be able to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue may lead to authentication bypass. Versions 1.12.4 and 1.18.0 contain a patch for the issue.
Similar SeverityMEDIUM
A directory traversal vulnerability in the Apex One (on-premise) server could allow a pre-authenticated local attacker to modify a key table on the server to inject malicious code to deploy to agents on affected installations. This vulnerability is only exploitable on the on-premise version of Apex One and a potential attacker must have access to the Apex One Server and already obtained administrative credentials to the server via some other method to exploit this vulnerability.
Microsoft Defender Denial of Service Vulnerability
Incus is a system container and virtual machine manager. In versions before 7.0.0, broken TLS validation logic in the OVN database connection logic can allow connections to an attacker's OVN database. The OVN client implementations disable Go standard TLS server verification and replace it with custom peer-certificate verification logic. That replacement verifier does not anchor trust in the configured CA certificate. Instead, it constructs the verification root set from certificates supplied by the peer during the handshake, so the configured CA is parsed but not used as the trust anchor for the final verification decision. In OVN-enabled deployments that use these SSL database connection paths, an attacker able to impersonate or intercept the OVN endpoint on the management network can present a rogue self-signed certificate chain, and Incus will accept this certificate as valid. This issue defeats the intended CA-based trust model for OVN database connections and permits endpoint impersonation by an active attacker in a suitable network position. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.
Incus is a system container and virtual machine manager. In versions before 7.0.0, missing validation logic in the storage volume import logic allows an authenticated user with access to the storage volume feature to cause the Incus daemon to crash. The custom volume backup import subsystem contains a nil-pointer dereference vulnerability during import operations. In the snapshot import loop, the daemon iterates over entries from `srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots` and assumes that each slice element is initialized, then dereferences fields such as `Name`, `Config`, `Description`, `CreatedAt`, and `ExpiresAt` without first validating the element itself. Because the yaml unmarshaler accepts explicit null array elements from an attacker-controlled index.yaml and converts them into nil pointers inside the slice, an attacker can supply a backup archive containing a null entry in the volume_snapshots array. This causes a nil-pointer dereference during custom volume import and terminates the daemon, resulting in denial of service on the affected node. Repeated use of this issue can be used to keep Incus offline, causing a denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.
A vulnerability has been found in PicoTronica e-Clinic Healthcare System ECHS 5.7. This affects an unknown function of the file /cdemos/echs/api/v2/ of the component Response Header Handler. Such manipulation leads to information disclosure. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 5.7.1 mitigates this issue. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component. The vendor was contacted early, responded in a very professional manner and quickly released a fixed version of the affected product.
Learn More
View this score breakdown or calculate a custom score
Learn how severity scores are calculated and what they mean
Best practices for deciding which vulnerabilities to address first
Essential guide to Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures